Active implementation of policy relieves employer of
liability

In Ali v Sitel an employment tribunal found that an
employer could not be held liable for harassment on because it had a clear
policy prohibiting discrimination and harassment, had trained all staff in its
application and had continually monitored the policy.

Mr Ali is a Muslim. When he decided to grow a
beard, as part of his own expression of his religious belief, he took part in
good natured comments about his youthful appearance and well meaning
observations about his beard’s rate of growth and shape. However, he alleged
that he was also subjected to adverse comments, such as being called “Chemical
Ali”, that he cut his beard off and being likened to Bin Laden.

The tribunal found that the general banter did not
amount to religious harassment, particularly as comments about Mr Ali’s beard
were readily welcomed and received by him and on other occasions he not only
participated in discussions but also gave no indication that the comments were
unwelcome. However, the Bin Laden comment did amount to harassment.

But
Sitel argued that the defence in Regulation 22(3) of the Religion or Belief
Regulations applied and that it was not liable, i.e. it had taken steps that
were reasonably practicable to prevent the act of discrimination. The tribunal
agreed.

The company had put
in place “detailed policies” to combat discrimination, employees were aware
that discriminatory conduct would not be tolerated and the policy was not a
static document but part of a dynamic regime involving training, awareness and
monitoring. Therefore, Sitel was not liable.

May 2010